header-logo header-logo

Negligence fee victory for Mesothelioma sufferers

09 July 2015
Issue: 7660 / Categories: Legal News , Damages , Fees , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Welcome court fee U-turn for mesothelioma cases

Mesothelioma sufferers will not be asked to spend their government pay-out on court fees if they bring a negligence claim, after Justice Secretary Michael Gove conceded defeat ahead of a judicial review.

Mesothelioma sufferers faced the prospect of paying up to £10,000 in court fees to bring a claim, after the government controversially hiked court fees for civil proceedings in March 2015. However, they can now apply for a fee remission without a statutory pay-out counting towards the “disposable capital” threshold.

Lawyers for the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK and mesothelioma sufferers Ian Doughty and Carole Sloper brought a legal challenge, arguing that mesothelioma sufferers, whose terminal lung condition is caused by exposure to asbestos, are typically of modest means—their illness makes them disabled within the terms of the Equality Act 2010.

As they will have received a lump sum award of about £15,000 under the Pneumoconiosis Etc Workers’ Compensation) Act, they will usually not qualify for the fee remissions scheme, which has a threshold of £16,000 in “disposable capital”. Their claim will be worth £150,000 to £300,000 so they would therefore need to pay up to £10,000 up front in order to bring a negligence claim.

Their lawyers argued that mesothelioma sufferers would be prevented from bringing a claim because they could not be expected to give up a large part of their disposable capital in the last months of their lives.

A judicial review hearing was scheduled for later this month. However, Gove agreed last week to exclude mesothelioma compensation awards from the definition of “disposable capital” and will now place an amending statutory instrument to that effect before Parliament.

Issue: 7660 / Categories: Legal News , Damages , Fees , Personal injury
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll